This was my guy for POTUS...too bad he was shot down by the establishment.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think you just made Marvin's point.
Take abortion. Nothing is Constitution governing it(I think Franco would agree). The arguement of the "right to privacy", is the most illogical arguement I can imagine. Originially ruled, a child could get an abortion WITHOUT parental knowledge or consent. Yet I could not even so much perform and exam or clean their teeth without parnetal consent. Furthermore try to write a child a percription for anything but birth control pills. As far as the schrillness on the subject, the Constitution does guarantee the right to free speach.

As far as social workers helping someone take responsibility, I have no idea how anyone can make someone take responsibility. Only by there being consequences for action can there be any incentive to take responsibility. Last communiction with a social worker went like this. "Well can you give her JUST ONE MORE CHANCE? My response was HELL WILL FREEZE OVER BEFORE SHE GETS IN THIS CLINIC AGAIN!.

You say you despise the takeover of the gov. by monied interests. I despise the takeover of our gov. by ANY SPECIAL INTEREST, be they black, white, union, I think you get my message. I despise those who would single out any minority be they black, white or the top 1% as if they should not enjoy the same rights and freedoms as any other. You cite the 76,000 pages of the tax code as if it only benefits a certain special interest. On the contrary, it only goes to show that the concept of an income tax is a TOTAL FAILURE and is by its very nature unworkable.

You say that you are for background checks at gun shows. I may be wrong but I have heard that they are already required. If they are in fact not then WHAT GOOD DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD DO? Do you really have any facts to show that such action would reduce illgal use of guns. Just another law that does nothing but push paperwork. Being a conservative, I WANT FEWER LAWS, NOT MORE. I want to repeal laws not make more.

Simply put government is not in, nor has ever been, nor will it ever be in the charity business. IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RULES, REGULATIONS, TAXES, DEPENDENCE AND CONTROL!! Reagan was so right when he said that if someone showed up and said the were from the Gov. and there to help you, then you should bend over because you were about to get it!

These are what I call conservative views.

I don't think it is the government's business to enforce religious view points nor should it intrude in the bedroom. That being said I would take the time with my clientele to explore all the alternatives to abortion. In the end, it was their choice whether I personally liked it or not.

As for the legal stance, the country as a rule takes its legal cues from English Common Law. The ECL holds that a person is not a person a person until the child can breath and survive on its own. My religious tradition and belief says otherwise. But, there is a lot that has been written here about government enforcing morality. That I am not for.

As the first amendment right to free speech, it may protect the right to be shrill, but it does not say I have to keep my mouth shut if it hurts my ears.

I would prefer that people would be encouraged to take responsibility without the help of a social worker, but, there is a small minority that drops the ball. Yes, you can make someone do stuff when it is a health and safety issue. I could petition the courts for permission to do some coercive things. I could ask the judge to remove a child, order people to get mental health treatment, or get chemical dependency treatment. I could get orders for parents to pay child support and to reimburse the government for services rendered,. If you think were all warm fuzzies, think again.

Is the income tax system a failure? I think you and I agree.

As for more laws, consider becoming celibate. With increasing population density comes loss of freedom. If you keep generating more spawn, the you are contributing to the problem.

The government has been in the charity business from the outset. In the early days there were the poor farms and local relief. During the depression the New Deal inserted itself when local governments became overwhelmed. The people of the time wished it to be so.

Almost agree with you. BUT I can't nor will I ever agree with "wisdom lies in the word of the Lord" because in my mind all that stuff was written by man for control of the population. I don't need someone telling me about my God and how I should do this or that. Are there some good ideas in the Bible? Sure. Wisdom, eh not sure about that and I don't want our government and our politicians run this way. To each his though, but I fear that the religious right won't respect that if they ever get their chance at control.

Sarge asked me aquestion, I tried to answer it honestly.

Don't see any where in there or any other post I have ever made, telling anyone what they should beleive.
In fact, I am doubtful you have any clue in the world what I beleive spiritually.

Don't see any where in there or any other post I have ever made, telling anyone what they should beleive.
In fact, I am doubtful you have any clue in the world what I beleive spiritually.

I'm afraid I came off as attacking you, but that wasn't my intention. I just really don't like the idea of equating the Bible to higher education. Now as to the people that come both institutions there are good and there are bad, but I will argue that more bad has come from organized religion than universities throughout history.

I'm afraid I came off as attacking you, but that wasn't my intention. I just really don't like the idea of equating the Bible to higher education. Now as to the people that come both institutions there are good and there are bad, but I will argue that more bad has come from organized religion than universities throughout history.

The old testament is nothing more than a history book.
The 10 commandments are a solid basis by which to live.

I belong to no organized relgion.

My cathedral is the woods or the marsh.
My God lives in my kids laughter, my wifes smile, my dogs love, the wings of a mallard, the sunset/sunrise, a flushed rooster on a fall day etc.!!!

I don't think it is the government's business to enforce religious view points nor should it intrude in the bedroom. That being said I would take the time with my clientele to explore all the alternatives to abortion. In the end, it was their choice whether I personally liked it or not.

As for the legal stance, the country as a rule takes its legal cues from English Common Law. The ECL holds that a person is not a person a person until the child can breath and survive on its own. My religious tradition and belief says otherwise. But, there is a lot that has been written here about government enforcing morality. That I am not for.

As the first amendment right to free speech, it may protect the right to be shrill, but it does not say I have to keep my mouth shut if it hurts my ears.

I would prefer that people would be encouraged to take responsibility without the help of a social worker, but, there is a small minority that drops the ball. Yes, you can make someone do stuff when it is a health and safety issue. I could petition the courts for permission to do some coercive things. I could ask the judge to remove a child, order people to get mental health treatment, or get chemical dependency treatment. I could get orders for parents to pay child support and to reimburse the government for services rendered,. If you think were all warm fuzzies, think again.

Is the income tax system a failure? I think you and I agree.

As for more laws, consider becoming celibate. With increasing population density comes loss of freedom. If you keep generating more spawn, the you are contributing to the problem.

The government has been in the charity business from the outset. In the early days there were the poor farms and local relief. During the depression the New Deal inserted itself when local governments became overwhelmed. The people of the time wished it to be so.

Gun shows are exempt from background checks.

No disrespect to gov. bureaucrats but they are to ENFORCE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. While one may consider them charitable, nevertheless, regardless of how charitble the bureaucrat feels one is deserving, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS MUST BE FOLLOWED. However, individual charity has no rules or regulations to prevent what he or she feels is a generous giving to one they feel justly needs charity. the government has been "helping" the American Indian for over a hundred years and look where it has gotten them. The fact of the matter is those that have avoided the government "help" have been historically far better off. No matter the laack of food, medicine, shelter, the gov. bureaucrat MUST follow the rules and regulations. If one doesn't qualify then none can be provided. On the contrary, an individual follows his own heart. If you can't see that then you will never understand.

Population density has nothing to do with individual freedom. Such a statement is nothing but an excuse to limit another's individual freedom for the convience of another. Take the former Soviet Union, one of thelargest countries. Relatively less populated to many other countries but one that had almost no individual freedom. Always, almost always, excuses to limit individual freedom only is applied to a minority. The former Nazi Party comes to mind. I think anyone would accept the fact that Hitler chose to limit the individual freedom of the Jews using the excuse that they controled the money, and they were an impure race. The phrase "we are the 99%" reminds me of such demigogery. What ever happened to "we are the 100%"?!

As for the depression of 1930, the gov. raised taxes and instituted massive spending as as a result the depression lasted 15 years. The economic downturn(can't call it a depression because it didn't last long enough) of 1920 was far more severe. Unemployment of 35%, GDP drop also of about 35% far worse that 1930 or now. The action of the gov. was to reduce the highest marginal tax rate from 75% to 25% and cut the Fed budget from a little over 6 billion to less than 3 billion in a 2 year timespan. That brought on the roaring 20"s. Again pointing out that history says we never learn from history.